A Mental Model for Video
tjkrusinski.com
A Mental Model for Video
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#2Amazing gifs! Just scanning it is enough to understand it.
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#3This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#4The image that tries to illustrate how frames per seconds affects motion is wrong. At least in my browser, it is crossfading between images in the 30 and 15Hz illustrations. That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing. Simplistic attempts to "improve" motion are universally worse than leaving it alone.
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#5The image that tries to illustrate how frames per seconds affects motion is wrong. At least in my browser, it is crossfading between images in the 30 and 15Hz illustrations. That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing. Simplistic attempts to "improve" motion are universally worse than leaving it alone.
Most display technologies essentially crossfade between sequential frames due to the response time of the image display elements. There's been a lot of work on reducing this but it's still a thing.
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#6This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)
Seems the font-weight on the body has been set to lighter. Maybe it looks OK on a Mac, with incorrect font blending. ;- )
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#7This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)
It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want?
https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#8Amazing gifs! Just scanning it is enough to understand it.
Came here to make the same comment. Really love the aesthetics of this page.
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#9This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)
It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want? https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...
Not OP, but at default zoom level, the text is too thin - most of the pixels aren't actually black - they are subpixels smeared across two columns.
Re: A Mental Model for Video
#10This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)
It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want? https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...
>What more do you want?
100% contrast. People went to great effort to achieve the highest possible contrast in print, e.g. with barium sulfate coated paper, optical brighteners in paper, single-use carbon film typewriter ribbons, oil based inks so pigments could be used instead of dyes, etc. Contrast is good. The only good reason I can think of to use less than 100% is for syntax highlighting.